Dear Republicans: Please stop lying to my face.
If Republicans would stop with the supply-side bullshit about how the rich are going to give us jobs if we tax them less and just outright admitted that, "Hey, we think it's crap that the rich are paying more in taxes," I would feel less inclined to smack them in the face whenever they open their lying whore mouths.
Re: Re: Dear Republicans: Please stop lying to my face.
Originally posted by Robtard
I assume this has (at least in part) to do with Obama bending over and cum-farting all over the people that voted him in by going along with the Republicans and not keeping his campaign promise on tax-cuts?
Wait wait...I did not hear or read about this.
*Googles*
Yup, it's true.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20101204/US.Tax.Cuts/
WASHINGTON — Brushing past Democratic opposition, President Barack Obama announced agreement with Republicans Monday night on a plan to extend expiring income tax cuts for all Americans, renew jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and grant a one-year reduction in Social Security taxes.The emerging agreement also includes tax breaks for businesses that the president said would contribute to the economy's recovery from the worst recession in eight decades.
Obama's announcement marked a dramatic reversal of his long-held insistence, originally laid out in his 2008 campaign, that tax cuts should only be extended at incomes up to $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. He explained his about-face by saying that the agreement called for a temporary, two-year extension of cuts at all income levels, not the permanent renewal that Republicans have long sought.
Even so, in a sign of Democratic discontent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reacted curtly to the president's announcement.
"Now that the president has outlined his proposal, Senator Reid plans on discussing it with his caucus tomorrow," his spokesman, Jim Manley, said in a written statement.
Top Republicans were far more receptive.
"I appreciate the determined efforts of the president and vice president in working with Republicans on a bipartisan plan to prevent a tax hike on any American and in creating incentives for economic growth," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader. In a jab at Democratic lawmakers, he added, "I am optimistic that Democrats in Congress will show the same openness to preventing tax hikes the administration has already shown."
Democrats also objected to an extension of the estate tax that tilted toward the Republican position.
For months, Democrats have repeatedly raised objections to including the upper-income in any plan to extend tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 when George W. Bush was president. The Democratic-controlled House recently passed legislation to let the cuts lapse on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. On Saturday, Republicans blocked an attempt by Senate Democrats to do the same.
Obama said there were elements of the deal he personally opposed, including an extension of expiring income tax cuts at upper income levels and the more generous deal on estates. But he said he decided that an agreement with Republicans was more important than a stalemate that would have resulted in higher income taxes at all levels on Jan. 1.
"Make no mistake, allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family and that could cost our economy well over a million jobs," he said at the White House.
Obama said the continued political stalemate over taxes amounted to a "chilling prospect for the American people whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on Jan. 1."
In his announcement, Obama said he had agreed on a bipartisan framework, and said he wanted Congress to approve it before lawmakers adjourn for the year later this month. In a telling sign that the White House recognizes the extent of Democratic opposition, officials said they would prefer the Senate vote first.
If Obama's reversal on tax cuts for the wealthy was remarkable, so, too, was the extent to which the agreement signaled a new era of divided government in the capital.
Republicans won control of the House last month, and strengthened their hand in the Senate. Even though the newly elected lawmakers don't take their seats until January, Obama has already treated their leaders with far more deference than he has so far in his term. Similarly, McConnell and Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, in line to become House speaker, have seemed willing to strive for compromise with the White House, rather than merely oppose virtually all of the president's initiatives.
Momentum for a year-end deal picked up after Obama met at the White House last week with Republican leaders for the first time since his party's dispiriting election losses, and accelerated again when the government reported last week that joblessness had risen in November, to 9.8 percent.
The flurry of negotiations is taking place with lawmakers eager to wrap up their work for the year and adjourn for the holidays.
Obama, Reid and McConnell have all said in recent days they believe a deal on tax cuts and unemployment benefits is possible by midweek. If so, that would leave time for the Senate to debate and vote on a new arms control treaty with Russia, which Obama has made a top year-end priority.
Senate Republicans have seemed more willing to hold a ratification debate in recent days as the negotiations over taxes intensified, suggesting at least an implicit link between the two issues in the talks.
Damn, you're fast on the news. (I don't watch TV.)
Re: Re: Dear Republicans: Please stop lying to my face.
Originally posted by Robtard
I assume this has (at least in part) to do with Obama bending over and cum-farting all over the people that voted him in by going along with the Republicans and not keeping his campaign promise on tax-cuts?
Ron Paul will never be President. And this makes me sad.
Re: Re: Re: Dear Republicans: Please stop lying to my face.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ron Paul will never be President. And this makes me sad.
I'd love for him to be President too.
If his ideas actually worked it would be better for all Americans. Or after he's elected he'd fall into step along with every other president and not deliver much of the promises he preached cos 'the machine' likes the things the way they are and all the Paulitians would finally shut the **** up about the 'Ron Paul was right' rhetoric.
Either way, it's a win.
What I've always wanted to know is exactly where the line would be drawn by the majority of his supporters. Dismantle the government, jobless rates skyrocket, roll back so much legislation that no one knows which end is up, allows the free market to dictate the economy, but also remove the measures that are in place that prop up the market to be controlled by the very companies that have reduced the concept of the free market to little more than a failed ideaology, like communism.
Where does it end with the people who support his position?
How do you figure that?
Ron Paul? He stands where he stands, and he's not going to bend to special interests. Even if he is crazy.
Not if we get the same shit-sandwich, but in a different wrapper, which I fear is what we'll ultimately get should Obama lose in 2012.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Right now, we have two parties of corporatists. The first part is blatantly corporatist, and the dumbass constituents think they're fighting for America. The second party is covertly corporatist, and the dumbass constituents think that they're fighting for the poor. Both parties are mainly interested in helping out special interests, and both parties are willing to do a little song and dance to earn votes.
I agree, almost whole-heartedly. Where I do disagree is that you are addressing the reality of the current situation in this statement, but in others you've called adherents of only one mentally disabled. It is this perspective that shows you to be whole-heartedly in favor of one of these corporatist, bullshit-peddling parties, while allowing yourself to be squarely counted amongst the members of the other.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ron Paul? He stands where he stands, and he's not going to bend to special interests. Even if he is crazy.
Then he needs to seperate himself from the party that casts him as crazy, just as much as the other party does. But, his excuse for not doing so is that the party are the ones who moved away from its position, not that he did. While that may be true, there still has to come a time when it's apparent that doing the same thing and expecting different results makes us crazy. Mr. Paul does this constantly. If he is most interested in doing what is right, then he'd recognize that folks like yourself will support his position and not his party. Or will you? Does he realize that he needs the party, just as much as might President Obama, to get his point across? Democrats maintain they're the party of Jefferson. Republicans maintain they are the party of Lincoln. When does the party of the people become the real platform, and not the rhetoric conjured by invoking those men from our past that allow us to pretend the patriotism inspired by their names is a substitute for the reality of the times in which we live, here and now? How is it that his party is not just another special interest to him? A means to an end that ultimately betrays the majority of the rhetoric he espouses?
What exactly is the logic behind raising taxes when the economy is doing badly again? The main reason to raise taxes is to moderate the economy by making people tighter with their money.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ron Paul? He stands where he stands, and he's not going to bend to special interests. Even if he is crazy.
So? Lots of people are principled. That's a stupid reason to respect them, especially when you know the principles that they so blindly support are moronic.
So? Lots of people are principled. That's a stupid reason to respect them, especially when you know the principles that they so blindly support are moronic.
I agree, almost whole-heartedly. Where I do disagree is that you are addressing the reality of the current situation in this statement, but in others you've called adherents of only one mentally disabled. It is this perspective that shows you to be whole-heartedly in favor of one of these corporatist, bullshit-peddling parties, while allowing yourself to be squarely counted amongst the members of the other.
Then he needs to seperate himself from the party that casts him as crazy
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What? No. The Democratic party is center-right. I generally have contempt for their welfare-state shenanigans and spineless nature, but it's liberals that I set my hatred against. There is a stark difference between the two.Mayhaps. But then he'd have no political party at all, and that would weaken his already tenuous political standing.
And what would that stark difference be when you just pointed out they are the same party with two mantras meant to feed on the personality of the teo opposite types of people who support them?
Who needs a political party when you have principles? I don't think he has a weak political standing. I have been listening to people talk about him in the same vein as Teddy Roosevelt since the very first Republican debate of the '08 elections. He still ran for president that year, in several states. He kept all the money he raised in those campaignes. He sticks with a party that mocks him because he needs it makes it easier to get re-elected, not simply to get re-elected. People all over this country begged him to start a new party, and he refused. He refused when it would have been easiest. I think it was because he knew he was selling the false hope that his followers look down on others for having in the President, or some other politicians. You assert that he shouts about what's right for the sake of being correct. I assert that he shouts about what he thinks is correct because while it sounds good, what really gets him elected over and over again is the disdain he enjoys from members of his own party. He knows what it's about. He knows it gets him votes and followers. Followers like yourself.
Not for one second did anyone outside the Tea Party think they were anything but the very most batshit crazy members of the Republican party. Ron Paul kept mostly out of the debate between the tea party and the rest of the republican party. But the kind of crazy he sometimes sells with his seemingly common sense ideas didn't fall far from the tree when it comes to his kid.